Liverpool FC Forum

by **dawson99** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:33 am

like a dude with a guitar for a gun? sa-weet

by **Paul C** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:51 pm

dawson99 wrote:like a dude with a guitar for a gun? sa-weet

by **JBG** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:18 pm

Emerald Red wrote:Yep, a Duel Core is exactly that - twice the given spec. So, your CPU is 4.8 ghz effectively.

Not correct at all.

Dual core does not equal twice the speed. A game/application has to be multithreaded for dual core to see speed increases and even though dual cores have been around for more than two years there are still not that many multithreaded games.

by **dawson99** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:25 pm

oblivion expansion pack shivering isles for the 360 will be out in a couple of weeks for those interested

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:32 pm

dawson99 wrote:oblivion expansion pack shivering isles for the 360 will be out in a couple of weeks for those interested

Don't bother mate its not that good. Starts off great but after that it just gets boring.

by **dawson99** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:36 pm

im a dark elf tho! lol
the game seems soo much smaller the second time

by **Emerald Red** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:39 pm

JBG wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Yep, a Duel Core is exactly that - twice the given spec. So, your CPU is 4.8 ghz effectively.

Not correct at all.

Dual core does not equal twice the speed. A game/application has to be multithreaded for dual core to see speed increases and even though dual cores have been around for more than two years there are still not that many multithreaded games.

I always thought that when Intel brought out Hyper-Threading before multiple cores were heard of, that it was a completely different technology?

Say something isn't optimized for more than one core, does that mean that one core in a dual-core chip goes to waste? Surely not. Wouldn't it just mean that both cores tend to a particular application if needed, so effectively borrowing more speed to cope? Surely a quad core running at 2 ghz is a lot faster than a single core running at 3.5 ghz?

by **JBG** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:43 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
JBG wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Yep, a Duel Core is exactly that - twice the given spec. So, your CPU is 4.8 ghz effectively.

Not correct at all.

Dual core does not equal twice the speed. A game/application has to be multithreaded for dual core to see speed increases and even though dual cores have been around for more than two years there are still not that many multithreaded games.

I always thought that when Intel brought out Hyper-Threading before multiple cores were heard of, that it was a completely different technology?

Say something isn't optimized for more than one core, does that mean that one core in a dual-core chip goes to waste? Surely not. Wouldn't it just mean that both cores tend to a particular application if needed, so effectively borrowing more speed to cope? Surely a quad core running at 2 ghz is a lot faster than a single core running at 3.5 ghz?

Ninety five percent of applications out there do are not multithreaded and hence in a dual core set up only one core is being used, the other core being idle. The application needs to be programmed to take advantage of the second core, the vast majority are not.

New games take advantage of dual and quad core but even then it doesn't equate to a 100% improvement in performance.

The first dual cores, the AMD Athlon X2 series were by and large actually slower than single core cpus at gaming, so a single core Athlon FX 53 was faster at gaming than a dual core X2 3800. Nowadays all processors are multicored by the speed improvements are not necessarily due to the extra cores but more and faster cached memory on the cpu, better instructions sets, more calculations per cycle. Also, megahertz is a really unreliable way of gauging performance: for example, the Xbox360 has a tri-core processor running at 3.2GHZ but probably only offers a real life performance equivalent to a low end Intel Core 2 Duo.

Things are improving but it will still be some time before the real world benefits of multi core will be seen. In any event, nowadays, its the graphics card that really counts, while the processor is still important the graphics card is the real work horse.

BTW people, I just finished Halo 3 on Legendary! :buttrock

by **dawson99** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:44 pm

ok, im a dumbass, but legendary?
is that single player still but real hard? im doing it on second hardest but im just running around, may need to take my time methinks

by **JBG** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Legendary = hardest difficulty setting.

by **dawson99** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:30 pm

ok, well only played it for a couple of hours and getting my butt kicked on what must be pu$$y seting, but give me time

by **Emerald Red** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:48 pm

JBG wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
JBG wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Yep, a Duel Core is exactly that - twice the given spec. So, your CPU is 4.8 ghz effectively.

Not correct at all.

Dual core does not equal twice the speed. A game/application has to be multithreaded for dual core to see speed increases and even though dual cores have been around for more than two years there are still not that many multithreaded games.

I always thought that when Intel brought out Hyper-Threading before multiple cores were heard of, that it was a completely different technology?

Say something isn't optimized for more than one core, does that mean that one core in a dual-core chip goes to waste? Surely not. Wouldn't it just mean that both cores tend to a particular application if needed, so effectively borrowing more speed to cope? Surely a quad core running at 2 ghz is a lot faster than a single core running at 3.5 ghz?

Ninety five percent of applications out there do are not multithreaded and hence in a dual core set up only one core is being used, the other core being idle. The application needs to be programmed to take advantage of the second core, the vast majority are not.

New games take advantage of dual and quad core but even then it doesn't equate to a 100% improvement in performance.

The first dual cores, the AMD Athlon X2 series were by and large actually slower than single core cpus at gaming, so a single core Athlon FX 53 was faster at gaming than a dual core X2 3800. Nowadays all processors are multicored by the speed improvements are not necessarily due to the extra cores but more and faster cached memory on the cpu, better instructions sets, more calculations per cycle. Also, megahertz is a really unreliable way of gauging performance: for example, the Xbox360 has a tri-core processor running at 3.2GHZ but probably only offers a real life performance equivalent to a low end Intel Core 2 Duo.

Things are improving but it will still be some time before the real world benefits of multi core will be seen. In any event, nowadays, its the graphics card that really counts, while the processor is still important the graphics card is the real work horse.

BTW people, I just finished Halo 3 on Legendary!

Just goes to show, I'd consider myself fairly knowledgeable when it comes to computer components - not so much processors, but GPU's - so imagine being clueless and wanting to buy a high end one of these things. This PC I'm on is my first PC. I bought it about 5 years ago in PC World. Had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have bought it for the price I did (£1000). I could have saved about 400 of that building my own one.

You're right about the 360's processor. Three cores running at 3.2 ghz. When I first heard that a few years ago it sounded like a super computer. Then only recently Dual Cores came out for PC at lower clock speeds, but were touted as better performance than that of the CPU inside 360. This always confused me. And I think Sony's claim of Cell having like 9 cores is just a bit ridiculous. Bravo, Sony - now all we need now is a game to take advantage of it. Tw@ts. It's practically useless.

On another note, I just picked up Mario Galaxy and COD4 a few hours ago. I just started getting into Oblivion too. I also still have to pick up Bioshock and PGR4, those and the fact Mass Effect could turn out to be a stunner next week when it's out. I can't remember the last time such a glut of AAA games have come out withing a few weeks of one another.

by **red37** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:39 am

Official member of the Mile High Club (CoD4) :buttrock

Thank f**k for that - ive put hours into that one, THE single most infuriating achievement i've done in a game ever!

by **username** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:45 am

Stupid tescos sold out of galaxy already :angry:

... oh well, the train tomorrow it is!

by **Emerald Red** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:58 am

username wrote:Stupid tescos sold out of galaxy already ... oh well, the train tomorrow it is!

I got it on Thursday. Game in Belfast were selling it early. Big line outside it when I arrived, plus a few maniacs dressed in Mario outfits waiting for the game. I wanted out of that shop as fast as possible.

My main gripe with Mario Galaxy is that it's a bit too easy from what I've played so far. It's certainly a bit more easy than 64 was.

I also picked up COD4. Class game. Awesome production values on that one.

Liverpool FC Forum

The computer games thread - 56K Modem Warning/Image heavy

Who is online